Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Just. Fuck. You.

There, now that I’ve got the only plausible reaction to that comment out of the way …

I heartily agree with everything you say except two points, and there I do not disagree as fully as you incorrectly assume.

On the DADT, I simply don’t think that it works out that way. Yes, it is an interesting idea that the Justice Department should not be putting energy into something that is unconstitutional, but this is not their jurisdiction in the same way as, say, an immigration issue where they can simply forget to notice that there is a (stupid) law being broken and let time pass until the courts or congress settles it. It would be roughly like the FBI deciding not to prosecute drug offenses … it would have no effect and they are in arrangement where they would have to get involved anyway. DADT is a law. There really are separation of powers.

I would have thought that a command to the military to simply not enforce DADT would be the right thing to do, and would fix it (again, until the courts/congress caught up), but apparently (I’m told) it is not that difficult to then bring suit to insist on the enforcement of the rule, or for the military to ignore the order in ways that don’t ignore the order. An executive order can’t do it. You just cant order that a law passed by congress not be enforced.

Second point I don’t agree on: “So we should sit down and shut up? Is that it?”

No, and that is not what I said.

What I said is simply this, and this is not confined to gay rights issues, but to all the progressive/liberal issues: If every time there is an “atta boy” … every single time … it is clothed in an “but I’m unhappy, it’s not enough, should have been sooner, and what about this other stuff” … every time …. then you are giving away your opportunity to use the positive rhetoric in the common fight against the worser of the two evils. That is the entirety of my point. I did not say or suggest that “we” sit down and shut up. The criticism that not enough has been done, not fast enough, etc. etc. is a valid point and should be made. But made effectively, not as a backdrop to general disappointment.

I’m complaining about the whining. But I would very fully support a march on DC or some other major loud and in your face event or set of events.

I’m talking about strategy and tactics. You’re talking about how I have to be as uniformly and thoughtlessly negative about every thing as you are or I’ve got white privilege. My strategies and tactics may not be perfect but your strategy and tactics suck.

It may well be true that the accomplishments of the Obama administration with respect to gay rights are especially disappointing.

It is true. He had a chance to be so much more. He still does, but right now his record is especially disappointing.

for every thing the average Obama Whiner can mention that they didn’t think Obama did soon enough or fast enough or didn’t do yet, there are ten good things he did that the whiner does not know about.

The fact remains that when the sick half of the same-gender LGBT couple gets out of the hospital, the federal government will still treat them as separate individuals, and if the sick person should die while in the hospital, the living half would be left out cold by the federal government. And like I said, I dislike the weaselly term “domestic partnership” which is being deliberately used to denigrate LGBT couples who cannot be married in the eyes of President Obama’s deity. You want 10 good things, I want my equal rights. These are people’s basic needs being withheld. Just because he is the lesser by far of two evils does not make everything he does good.

Obama ordering abrogation of DADT in the military is probably impeachable.

Stop loss. It is unimpeachable (and actually it appears to be in effect now). Or how about not defending clearly unconstitutional laws in court.

the negativity is a) being overplayed (and it is getting a bit embarrassing) and b) it is being used against you.

So we should sit down and shut up? Is that it? For Spam’s sake, that upsets me that you would say that. I suppose for people who are heterosexually privileged, that is an easy thing to say these days.

No.

“Do we now welcome the public into the operating and recovery room if that’s what the patient decides?”

Are you trying to be an idiot?

“My apologizes for jumping the gun.”

No problem.

There are classic cases of gay significance others taking a few weeks/months to die in an ICU with their mate not being allowed in the room ever, at all. this is for rea.

Did this actually happen, or is this more of a pre-emptive move to prevent such ridiculousness before some asstard hospital administrator tries to pull a fast one?